From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 15 13:29:11 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7082616A415 for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:29:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: from web33315.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web33315.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.206.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9ADEE43D6D for ; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:29:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from danial_thom@yahoo.com) Received: (qmail 30868 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Oct 2006 13:29:10 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=sky9OOJk1YiTZ5i8Y5uDr/xWRnZJM5Ax+LD485VFipkkoV2/sC2gw18Q1dzjZ2Joby/nw8JSyURo8/8H3XAojY54+zd14QisYTbZVPmoB+4iP+i6DfttvfAn6Ek3r3hLMEXPwV34dhPkf/j+AecDGYDgmf8gLhtD5zLEI60ypUs= ; Message-ID: <20061015132910.30866.qmail@web33315.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [65.34.182.15] by web33315.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:29:10 PDT Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:29:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Danial Thom To: NOC Meganet , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, performance@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200610150010.59782.tec@mega.net.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Subject: Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: danial_thom@yahoo.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:29:11 -0000 --- NOC Meganet wrote: > On Saturday 14 October 2006 17:13, Danial Thom > wrote: > > The fact that a processor has 2 cores doesn't > > mean you have to use them, just like a MB > with 2 > > sockets doesn't need both to be used. If the > OS > > is faster with 1 processor than 2, then you > only > > use one of the cores. The concept that you > have > > to fire up both of them just because they're > > there is just stupid. > > > > you also can pick yourself in one eye and still > can see with the other or you > can cut one leg and hop around on the other, > great ideas you have Wait, this is interesting. So even though you can demonstrate that for most large networking tasks 2 cores is actually slower than 1, you still use 2 cores? Yikes. All of the clowns that called themselves networking gurus running MP systems in 4.x continue to be clowns in general. I guess if you don't understand the concepts, then you have no chance of every being any good at anything > > so then your smart tip is running 4.11-UP on > Tyan S4882D with 4 Opterons 8xx > dual-core? mhhh ... No, my smart tip is to buy hardware that suits the operating system and the task. I can get better performance than you with a single 2.8Ghz opteron running 4.x for $1000 less per system. If you use that hardware with Freebsd, you are a clown, pure and simple, big red nose and all. You just have no idea what you're doing and your wasting either your or your company's money. If you bought that hardward anticipating that 7+ or 8+ or whatever they're saying now might be able to use it thats one thing, but wasting money on big honking hardware that isn't faster than less expensive hardware is just plain stupid. > > > Freebsd 4.11 is dead because of a stupid > decision > > but people who thought that MP would have > been > > working 2 years ago. They continue to not be > able > > to promise any scalability in the foreseeable > > future, so maybe they need to revisit the > > decision. > > > > yes! and I also prefere horses with wagons > instead of red V12 cars and even > this guys know that horses are better and put a > horse into their logo ... The fallacy of your analogy is that the red cars can beat the horse and buggy in a race. Unfortunately, FreeBSD 6.x with 4 processors can't beat 4.x with one, which is the entire point of this thread. DT __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com